The Nature of Mutations

quote:

---

Once again, you've assumed purpose in a context where "purpose" is a meaningless term...throughout this thread you've made the assumption that objects can have inherent purpose. I do not believe this to be so. This is an assertation you'll have to support.

---

Actually, in light of the advancements made in molecular biology, it is your assertion that no purpose in molecular machines is false. Without going crazy and way off theme, lets look at the supposed evolution of sexual organs. In the male, you have 27 different parts, all with specific jobs to carry out, and all aligned and put together in such a fashion as to carry out those jobs. It is hard to imagine them in different connection points working in the manner that they are supposed to. In addition, these 27 different parts are coded for by different chromosomes, and some portions are coded for by more than one.If even one of these parts is nonfunctional, the whole organ is nonfunctional (you know, irreducibly complex). This includes the testes and the fact that sperm cannot be produced inside the body, but have to be outside, hence the reason for the scrotum. The entire organ screams design, but we will not go there. Then you have the female sex organs, 21 in all, and each just as specific as in the case with the male organ. This including the manner in which the eggs are produced and behave.In considering these, you must also consider the fact that, if evolution were true, each of these separate parts would have had to come about piecemeal over hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years...where would the selection pressure come from for these to be selected? How would they be selected seeing as their purpose is only found within the whole? If you advocate change of structure/function, then you open up another whole slue of questions that you cannot answer without so many assumptions that your entire hypothesis doesn't remain within the scientific realm.Then you have to consider that the male and female organ fit together perfectly, as most of us can well attest too!!! In any case, this perfect fit did not occur on accident. Then we also have to consider that (from an evolutionary perspective) these organs had to adapt to one another...and how could this take place? Especially when we make mention of the female and her eggs being acquainted with the DNA of the male.Also in question is that neither the male nor female organs will function unless there is emotional behavior getting things started. A penis will not function sexually without arousal behavior, neither will the vagina. this means that we go beyond the perview of the organ itself and now must address the machinery invovled in the arousal, ejaculatory state of the organs.How many millions of mutations would it have taken in order to even begin our consideration of these two marvelous organs? How is it that, in a world prevously of asexual organs only, could sexual organs ever even get a start, and most importantly, why? All answers to these and other questions that I have ever heard all border on precognition of evolution, and we all know that this is a farce. You might as well go ahead and say that God did it and save us all the headache and trouble.Greetings!

quote:

---

Adaption is used quire widely. In the case of the article at U-M Web Hosting
it is clearly used to express the idea that this mutation is beneficial and no more:

---

If the history of science has taught you anything, surely you know that science has been wrong on many occassions, and maintained that error ONLY because there was a vast number of scientists in that day and age who - based upon nothing more than emotional attatchment - kept the theory and ideals alive for their own agenda. Phlegistron (?) for example.Adaptation is not due to mutation.

quote:

---

And am I right in thinking that you are a supporter of the ideas of Lee Spetner ? His followers tend to make the same errors as you in firstly misunderstanding the idea of "random mutations"

---

I am not a supporter of anyone's "ideas", I am a supporter of the facts. And the facts dictate what is and what is not. A genetic change is not a mutation if it is mediated by the organism. Period.
A mutation (I have not yet looked over the entire site so I do not yet know what we have decided that your definition of a mutation is, so I will stick with mine until I get that far) is only a random copying error made during replication that mutation correcting enzymes failed to fix. Period.That is not my definition, that is the facts.Greetings!

Frog...

quote:

---

You still haven't addressed what deleterious effect a gene duplication could have (particularly if its a duplication of a beneficial gene), given that they are, by your own admission, mutations...

---

AFter giving this much thought, I guess that I would have to concede that there is a possibility of gene duplication mutations that could be totally beneficial, only with some conditions...First - does every gene duplication mutation carry with it only beneficial phenotypic effects?Second - I, personally, think that these should not simply be called "mutations" per say. Perhaps GDM's or something of the like, in order to distinguish them from single (or multiple) nucloetide substitutions, duplications or deletions...particularly since it is an entire gene that is being duplicated.But one thing does puzzle me about gene duplications, why and how are they copied without expression? Understand what I mean? In other words, once the RNA has pulled its copy from the DNA, why would it insert in into the DNA instead of beginning translation?To be honest, it doesn't make sense unless it is being mediated by the organism, and then if that is the case, then I go right back to my original stance, that it cannot be considered a mutation because it IS being mediated by the organism's genetic system.Anyone have an answer for this one? I am not being facetious, it is an honest question.Greetings!

quote:

---

Perhaps you need to say what you mean by "variation". Most people assume that to mean "differences". Biologically it tends to refer to the phenomenon where individuals in a population tend not to be genetic clones of each other.

---

I have not heard this before, and to be quite honest, it sounds like another play on words and phrases, just like calling evolution "change", period.Variation, as far as I have always read and understood it to be, is the difference between a valley goat and a mountain goat. They are both goats, but the valley specimen has small hooves and a short coat, while its mountain cousin sports larger and wider hooves and a longer coat to deal with the weather at the higher elevations, for example.That argument is a bogus one in my mind, for no one is an exact clone of another. As I have stated before, even "identical" twins have different fingerprints.Greetings!

quote:

---

2nd, let’s say you are correct. A mutation that changes the original function of a gene is deleterious. If we traced the mutation of a bacteria through all of the generations to human beings, we would find one deleterious mutation after another (based on your definition), because each mutation would have changed the original purpose of the bacterial genes. So according to you, it is possible to get from a bacteria to a man with nothing but deleterious mutations.

---

You are assuming evolution to be a fact, the very issue that we are discussing, therefore your entire argument presented here is null and void.Greetings!

quote:

---

The differences in glyosylation which define blood types come from several well defined mutations.
mutations
Some of these changes in glycosylations, mutations within the glycosylating protein, can confer disease resistence
seminar on blood types
This is a well understood phenomina.

---

I am not ignoring this, I have tried twice now to get access and there must be too many people on line right now, I have been waiting for a while. I am pressed for time and am trying to answer as many as possible. I will also answer this, but later when I have the time to look them up.By the way, thanks!Greetings!

From "Q"...

quote:

---

Your attention invited to the reference provided in my post #90 of this thread. In addition, in an earlier post I referenced an article by Zhang and Rosenberg which also referenced this question. I will quote the abstract here:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An improved understanding of the evolution of gene function at the molecular level may provide significant insights into the origin of biological novelty and adaptation.

---

This is my fault. This may sound like a line, but it is not. I have been arguing from the standpoint that, in my mind, evolutionary theory has not been demonstrated, but is kept alive via misguided terminology and under certain assumptions that have yet to be demonstrated. The grand assumption in particular - that evolution has been in fact proven as reality.When I approach this board, this is the attitude I come with. Saying this, I basically am looking for someone to demonstrate from the facts (with no assumptions of the so-called "truth" of evolution) that evolution is a possibility. Only now have I realized that I have not made this clear to ya'll.This may put a damper on the discussion on your part, I don't know. Basically, when "Q" quotes the above, the author assuming the truth of evolution, I must take out all references and "matter-of-fact" statements out of the quote. Then I get a different understanding of the paragraph than what "Q" is trying to get across. Why? Because the author believes that evolution has been proven (because he has been unwittingly duped into the bogus terminology and word-games that evolutionary theorists dish out), it is not his fault, he just got caght up into it. Does this make any sense to you?Basically what I am here for is for someone to demonstrate that my original assertion of mutations is incorrect - while ignoring all references to the fact of evolution...because it is not a fact yet, and I doubt that it ever will be.Greetings!

quote:

---

Enard W, Przeworski M, Fisher SE, Lai CS, Wiebe V, Kitano T, Monaco AP, Paabo S.
Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language.
Nature. 2002 Aug 22;418(6900):869-72.

​

Britten RJ, Rowen L, Williams J, Cameron RA.
Majority of divergence between closely related DNA samples is due to indels.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 15;100(8):4661-5.

​

Britten RJ.
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13633-5.

​

Lenski RE, Winkworth CL, Riley MA.
Rates of DNA Sequence Evolution in Experimental Populations of Escherichia coli During 20,000 Generations.
J Mol Evol. 2003 Apr;56(4):498-508.

---

"M"...I have recently discovered NCBI and I will check there to see if I can get access to any of these. I will get back to this as soon as I can.And I apologize for it taking so long in between posts, as I have read about it earlier. As I said before, I am subject to call-in and recall five days a week, and then I have little ones that take up most of my time at home. Again, I apologize and I hope that you guys / gals (?) understand.Phos...

quote:

---

Hi PLG..An even better review of epigenetics and evolution...unfortunately Nature Reviews Genetics requires a subscription...but you can get it in most university libraries with a bio department.

---

Hi Math...hey, is there some way that I could access some of these papers/journals through a university library via the web? I don't even know if it is possible, just shooting in the dark.Tnx for any info! As you can probably guess, the only access I have had to journals is my local public library which I cannot take home. Most of my information that I have taken in is from those and biology textbooks that I have bought and read on my own.As far as education goes (some of you are going to love this, so I hesitate even saying it), I have studied biology texts but never had the money nor the time to take courses. All of my main education was work related that they paid for, and that is all in evidence, its accumulation, processing and presentation. This is where I suppose that I get my unique view regarding the "evidence" for evolutionary theory and its presentation.As far as that goes, to be honest, I see evolutionary theorists (not those who claim to be evolutionists from the "work" theorists do) as people who have purposefully done one of two things. They either pruned their papers to highlight certain things that gave credence to their pet theory, or they honestly assumed certain things in order to procede with their investigations...but then failed to cease assuming those things when the evidence dictated that they were not possibilities. Like any investigation, if there is no peripheral supporting evidence for an assumption, then that assumption is not warranted and most likely not even a possibility.Greetings!This message is a reply to:
Message 127 by Mammuthus, posted 05-06-2003 04:25 AM
Replies to this message:
Message 202 by Percipient, posted 05-19-2003 02:46 PM
Message 209 by SLPx, posted 05-19-2003 03:23 PM
Message 218 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 05-19-2003 05:58 PM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-09-2003]

quote:

---

M: wrong, the entire issue is the effect of the mutation. If a C to T transition in the Dloop of mitochondria has absolutely no effect on mtDNA replication, mitochondrial gene expression, etc. then the mutation is irrelevant as it has no effect on the organism. It is neutral with regards to evolution. However, any mutation that under a specific environmental condition ehances and indivduals chance at reproduction has a better chance of becoming more frequent. So not all mutations are deleterious...what does it matter if a pseudogene has a C or a T at a given position?

---

If I am understanding you correctly, you are talling about a neutral substitution, correct? In which case, it has no effect, and therefore I have no argument against this. My argument is against mutations that do have an affect.

quote:

---

Thus, the source of heritable variation IS genetic. That is not a strictly evolutionary concept as all genetics relies on this.

---

I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).

quote:

---

Population genetics and evolution are the same thing. That you deny this suggests you are either poorly informed about evolutionary biology or someone has purposefully mislead you...

​

Here..from a basic biology textbook for your edification

​

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

---

Again, if we define evolution simply as "change", then yes, population genetics is "evolution". But evolution is not simply change (playing word games again), it is about speciation. One organism giving rise to another different kind of organism altogether, and this has never been demonstrated as even a possibility. Every time this is addressed, it is addressed as speculation, and most often in "matter-of-fact" wording when the fact is not codified, nor can be.

quote:

---

PLG:
Pure beneficial mutations are assumed, why? Because without mutations you have no variant alleles. Why does evolution need variant alleles? Because variants are differences between organisms.

​

M: You were doing a bit better up to this point...

---

What I meant was that the gene pool of a species has boundaries which the species cannot go beyond. This has been known and understood now for nearly 5,000 - 10,000 years of animal husbandry and breeding. As I understood from one of Mayr's books (I can't remember which one right off the top of my head), he acknowledged this fact and then went on to say that mutation originates variation which can push the species over the old gene pool limitations, opening the way for speciation and evolutionary furtherance.To date, I have not read any articles demonstrating that variation can add novelties to a species gene pool that can take it beyond those limits. Do you know of any?

quote:

---

PLG: But variation does not give rise speciation...since when has one creature ever been observed to change into another creature?

​

M: one creature does not turn into another....Lamark was wrong.

​

However, variation in populations does give rise to new species and this has been observed in the case of bacteria, cichlids, and in various plants among other things.

---

OK, so here we go. The bacteria was still a bacteria, was it not? Then it did not speciate. Same goes for cichlids and all of the plants that have been shown to me thus far. The criteria on which the so-called "speciation" must be examined, and in most cases there are so many special circumstances as to warrant a "recall" in my mind.And when I say one species turning into another, I mean one species giving rise to another. I know one animal does not turn into another, so please do not insult my intelligence. This is the problem with evolutionary theory in general. Generalities are spoken when the issue is to avoid the specifics, and specifics are spoken when the issue is to avoid the generalites. Darwin did not wirte a thesis on change for change's sake, but in addressing speciation, therefore addressing evolution as speciation, not change. So why do modern evolutionists cling to "change" being evolution, when evolution is supposed to be all about explaining the origin of species? Genetic change does not give credence to evolution without definite, one-sided evidence, which it does not have.

quote:

---

PLG:
So, we have to come up with a definition of speciation that demonstrates evolution is a reality, and so Mayr has...in his own mind, anyway. However, none of these examples change one creature into another, they only demonstrate variation.

​

M: Again, your logic is flawed and also demonstrates you have no grasp of the scientific method.

---

Not so. I was saying that Mayr went outside the scientific method, I am saying that he was not doing science, but making up stories to suit his percieved needs in order to keep the theory alive.

quote:

---

PLG:In short, unless you have a genetic mechanism that can add to a single celled organism, that in time will build blue-prints for arms, legs, sex organs, other organs, a head, mouth, fingers, etc....

​

M: Actually there is...they are called Hox genes...I can't believe you have never heard of this

---

I have heard of it, and you are missing one small detail. You cannot claim hox genes unless you are going to give some kind of evidence that they, too, can come about from nothing down the evolutionary pathway. This is typical, "matter-of-fact" statements such as the claw of this certain crab was modified from mouth parts in its ancestors. This is not a scientific explanation of anything, it is, instead, a matter-of-fact statement based upon the opinion of the writer, based upon the unconfirmed assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.I will say it again, and then I have to go for now. What needs to be done is the assumption of evolution needs to be dropped from science altogether - every reference to evolutionary theory - and then begin again from scratch. From step one, and then have the process heavily monitored so that it only sticks with the facts. New terminology would undoubtedly be developed, and some old terminology would undoubtedly be dropped.But I am satisfied that if this was done, there would be no scientific arguments for or against evolutionary theory, the debate would be over.Gotta go for now, I tried to answer as many as I could get to in as little time as possible.Greetings!!!

quote:

---

Please define what you think is the scientific and generally accepted (in the scientific community) definition of
1. Mutation. Please provide supporting references for your definition
2. Evolution. Also provide supporting references and in addition please demonstrate how the definition I provided by Futuyma is false and is not accepted by scientists.

---

1. The definition of mutation that the general scientific community adheres to who deals with mutations on a daily basis, which excludes the vast majority of scientists, is exactly the definitions you and the other evolutionists have stated that they are, but this is wrong. Point, it doesn't matter how many scientists hold to a theory, or even a definition, if it is wrong, then they are wrong. And the vast majority of evolutionary scientists define mutations in the evolutionary sense because that is what they were told the definition meant...not really any fault of their own.There have been plenty of scientists proposing theories that were held to for generations, even though they were wrong, and not proven wrong for a very long time due to technological advancement. Yet those scientists who held to those theories, I am willing to bet, held on to them because of some personal bias...NOT because of the known facts. Such is the case with evolutionary theory today, I am willing to bet.2. The definition of evolution? Lets see, I have read in depth Mayr, Schwartz, Smith and Zsathmary, Montague, williams, Kitcher and the like. And what I am saying is that if we totally erase all references to evolution beginning today, and begin the investigation into the hypothesis proposed by Darwin, starting with the leads he provided in his thesis, evolution would never make it to the theory stage because it would be disproven.Why? Because when all of the illusionary terminology and illegitimate assumptions have been removed from the equasion, the theory has nothing to stand upon. Period.Yes, there are mutations. Yes, if copied genes are the random happens chance items that have been proposed on this board, and NOT initiated by the organism, then I concede that there is such a thing as a beneficial mutation...only in this case, so far anyway. You have changed my mind on this...IF it is indeed a random event, but I do not think that this has been demonstrated as yet. Still a possibility, however.But, do these genetic changes demonstrate the possibility and probability that legs can be built up where there was no genetic instructions for legs before in generations past? No. So, I guess, though the process of this debate, I have discovered that this was what I was talking about all along, and I did not realize it until now.So now I leave you with this question...or perhaps I should abandone this thread and begin a new topic? I leave this up to your decision. Has genetic change, no matter what you call it, been observed and demonstrated in a scientific manner - excluding opinions made in "matter-of-fact" statements - to build up phenotypic characters where before there were no genetic instructions for them?Greetings!

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. I must also state that variation is not an evolutionary concept at all. It was adopted by evolutionary theorists in an attempt to save their theory, but not even that has helped them except to the non-thinking masses (not directed at you).
-------------------------------------------------------------

​

Yes it is directed at Crashfrog, and at everyone else who believes in evolution. If it is not directed at Crashfrog, then it isn't true. You said that variation saves evolutionary theory only to the non-thinking masses, but both Crashfrog and I didn't think it needed saving in the first place. By what you said, that makes us non-thinking....There have been a lot of inaccurate things proposed on these forums, but very little that is as insulting and inaccurate together as what you said.

---

Hopefully I did not insult those who have been dialogging with me, I hope that they understand me enough to know what I was saying, but then again I was rather vague. Sometimes my fingers do not carry across what is running through my mind.For clarification, when I say non-thinking masses, irregardless of what Galop says, I refer to the public, not scientists. As I have said before, I do not blame the majority of the scientific community for believing or advocating evolutionary theory, they only believe what they were taught in college, and it is sad that they have been taught opinion as fact. I blame those evolutionary theorists, primarily from yester year, who did not follow the scientific method when they came to the end of the life of the theory, but instead invented new words, terminology and unfounded assumptions in order to keep the dead theory appearing to be alive.I do not call scientists non-thinking individual...at least not the vast majority...for whether you believe it or not, even scientists are human. What's more, I refer to the population of this country...the majority...as non-thinking, simply beause we as a technologically advanced society no run on emotionally charged decisions rather than brain power.You can see this everywhere. People speed down the road (even you!) without thinking or considering the possible consequences of their actions...just because they want to do what they want to do irregardless. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you kill someone because of your recklaceness (general, not YOU you). In my profession I see this on a monthly basis.In the days of old when one had to use their brain in order to hunt for food, build their homes and so on, we were thinkers. No we are lazy gluttons. How many on this board are overweight? Is it due to physical constraint, or laziness? I prove my point.When I refer to the non-thinking masses, even some christians fall into this catagory. True christianity begins usually in the life of a believer as based upon pure unqualified faith, but if it remains there, it dies and becomes religion. If that faith does not become solidly founded in evidences of the reason for that faith, it dies. I have found that a vast majority of so-called christians today are living a religion of unfounded faith that they call christianity...because they do not study and think about the world around them.So, if I have offended anyone else on this board, Math especially, I do apologize. This misunderstanding is entirely my fault...HA!!! I didn't think to explain myself when I said it...DOH!Have a great day, ya'all!